Main thread for Ed and Elaine Brown vs the evil IRS, Part 33

[LordBaltimore]

Has anyone heard from the Browns since the verdict?

[JosephSHaas]

Technically: no, as for both the Browns in the plural with the letter "s".
But of one: yes;

Your next question: of WHO?, I presume.

Answer: Bernie, by direct contact with Elaine on a visit(s) to the jail.

[Tunga]

The sixteenth empowers it as any and all sources.
The 'code' then goes on to define it within specific context throughout it.

The Congress can through the code define 'gross', 'earned', 'unearned', etc while still remaining within the meaning of the sixteenth amendment.

While Bouviers defines income as 'The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business'. But that itself would not be in the code.

FROM any and all sources.

Moron says what? The Supreme Court says it is derived from the exercise of privilege. Being a slave you will never grasp the difference between a Right bestowed by the Creator and a privilege granted by your rulers. Because you are a brainless ignorant stupid excuse for a human being and a far cry from what the founders would call an AMERICAN. Peon.

[Tunga]

Has anyone heard from the Browns since the verdict?

... and is enjoying his new home in Tahiti.

Do you think you could spell out the meaning of INCOME as the 16th Amendment means and includes or are you just here to inflame the Tunga further with your foul smelling brain farts?

[keith in RI]

how about this one jed?

title 26 cfr sec 312-6b. yes it deals with corporate taxes but!..........

"(b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by
statute, income not taxable by the Federal Government under the
Constitution, as well as all items includible in gross income under
section 61 or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts."

so if their own interpretation of the code (federal regulations) says that there is an income that is not taxable under the constitution i leave you the question, what income isnt taxable under the constitution?????

Non-profit religious and other fraternal corporations acting under the First Amendment. Its written into the code under 501c.

so the constitution says non profits ....acting under the first amendment... are not taxable??? lol this is the most ridiculous answer ive ever heard, i just wanted to point that out.....

[keith in RI]

this is a letter jason wrote to the american free press then forwarded to me to post here.

Dear Editor,
  I am deeply disappointed in the fact that AFP has ignored a major news story recently. Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted on July 9th, of multiple charges stemming from their 9-month standoff with U.S. Marshals in New Hampshire. They refused to pay the income tax until shown the law requiring them to do so, which as many know doesnt exist.

There is no shortage of criticism for those who refuse to make their voices heard within the pages of this paper. Multiple writers urge their readers to take a stand and let the "powers that be" know they won't take this tyranny any longer. yet, when a few brave souls decide to draw a line in the sand they are too often forgotten.

  Was there not enough room or esources to devote an entire story to the browns plight? It is difficult to see how a few paragraphs could not be spared for this purpose. If the AMERICAN FREE PRESS is truly interested in encouraging revolution within this country it goes without saying we need to focus on those fighting in the trenches.

  Let us not forget  those who have pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" as the founders of this country did.

                                   Jason Louis Gerhard
                                   20229-045
                                   Fairton New Jersey

[John Edward Mercier]

how about this one jed?

title 26 cfr sec 312-6b. yes it deals with corporate taxes but!..........

"(b) Among the items entering into the computation of corporate
earnings and profits for a particular period are all income exempted by
statute, income not taxable by the Federal Government under the
Constitution, as well as all items includible in gross income under
section 61 or corresponding provisions of prior revenue acts."

so if their own interpretation of the code (federal regulations) says that there is an income that is not taxable under the constitution i leave you the question, what income isnt taxable under the constitution?????

Non-profit religious and other fraternal corporations acting under the First Amendment. Its written into the code under 501c.

so the constitution says non profits ....acting under the first amendment... are not taxable??? lol this is the most ridiculous answer ive ever heard, i just wanted to point that out.....

You wondered why it was under corporate.

[John Edward Mercier]

The sixteenth empowers it as any and all sources.
The 'code' then goes on to define it within specific context throughout it.

The Congress can through the code define 'gross', 'earned', 'unearned', etc while still remaining within the meaning of the sixteenth amendment.

While Bouviers defines income as 'The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business'. But that itself would not be in the code.

FROM any and all sources.

Moron says what? The Supreme Court says it is derived from the exercise of privilege. Being a slave you will never grasp the difference between a Right bestowed by the Creator and a privilege granted by your rulers. Because you are a brainless ignorant stupid excuse for a human being and a far cry from what the founders would call an AMERICAN. Peon.

So post wher the Supreme Court has defined income...

[John Edward Mercier]

And while your at it... prove that there is a Creator from which your rights came into being.

[JosephSHaas]

this is a letter jason wrote to the american free press then forwarded to me to post here.

Dear Editor,
  I am deeply disappointed in the fact that AFP has ignored a major news story recently. Ed and Elaine Brown were convicted on July 9th, of multiple charges stemming from their 9-month standoff with U.S. Marshals in New Hampshire. They refused to pay the income tax until shown the law requiring them to do so, which as many know doesnt exist.

There is no shortage of criticism for those who refuse to make their voices heard within the pages of this paper. Multiple writers urge their readers to take a stand and let the "powers that be" know they won't take this tyranny any longer. yet, when a few brave souls decide to draw a line in the sand they are too often forgotten.

  Was there not enough room or esources to devote an entire story to the browns plight? It is difficult to see how a few paragraphs could not be spared for this purpose. If the AMERICAN FREE PRESS is truly interested in encouraging revolution within this country it goes without saying we need to focus on those fighting in the trenches.

  Let us not forget  those who have pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" as the founders of this country did.

  Jason Louis Gerhard, 20229-045, [ FCI Fairton, Federal Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 420] Fairton New Jersey [ 08320 ]

Thank you Jason and Keith.

See:  http://www.americanfreepress.net/   over to: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/icon_eustace_mullins__185.html for Eustace Mullins and http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/new_york_times_falsifies_169.html for The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 being our contract as citizens with this Private Federal Reserve System by way of their Board of Governors signing on to supply the Section 16 gold bullion per pallet of FRNs monetized to sell and buy the silver to melt down and mint into the dollars, because THE definition of a dollar is like a foot: 12 inches long for the foot, and #____ grains of either fine or pure silver for a dollar, as a unit of measurement too.  Has the definition of a foot changed since 1913? No.  Has the definition of a dollar changed since 1913.  No, for the constitution dollar, and not a substitute but an additional commerce dollar added for the marketplace. So WHY do the elected officials everywhere in this country deviate from 29 USC 630 to become employees!? They are not! Their mission is to comply with the Rule of Law.  To be the miner's canary to smell this corruption before we do, but that we smell it and it stinks! Re: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/expose_fed_185.html "Rep. Paul said: "The dollar is worth four cents [compared to] what it was worth in 1913 when the Fed was established. . . . That tells you they're not very good at protecting the value of our money. They're the counterfeiters of the world, protected by this secrecy. That has to end." by an audit of the Fed!? No! I say: by an audit of our very own U.S. Mint!  WHO is supposed to be accepting these bullion deposits by Section 16 but is not doing their job!? Maybe the AFP will help to finance by kicking in ___% to Eustice in his travels to #__ states this Summer and Fall, with a Special Visit by invitation from the Dover, N.H. City Council on August 26th of just a week before the sentencing for Ed & Elaine on Thursday, September 3rd, with them asking HOW they can get their September paychecks cashed in real dollars, since the local bank wouldn't cash them back in early August, and has been asked to check into this reason for why they only have the commerce coins from the 1965 Act when the law requires that the coins from the 1792 Act be the ones to pay them!  A "Run on the Bank" by these "officers" first and then us for when the government owes us money too, because that is what their accounts are to kept and had in this quality of coin, per section 20 of the Coinage Act of 1792 that is still the law.  Yes, they may accept the commerce coins, but that before they are put into the government account and on the books they have got to be converted!

I did just call the AFP and was told that Eustace has just left from there, but that they do not know to where he's going next, or any list for later this Summer and into the Fall.  The woman who answered the phone said to send her an e-mail, and so a copy and paste of this to my hotmail account being sent to them in D.C. in a few minutes.

cc: American Free Press, 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003, Phone: 202-544-5977

e-mail: The Editor at: afpeditor at americanfreepress.net
bcc: to my friend Wayne too, a friend of Eustace to maybe plan his trip up to here.

[JosephSHaas]

Here's a copy and paste:

"To: A.F.P.

Here's the copy and paste that I did just call you about.  When you next see Eustace would you please give him a copy of this and tell him that if and when the Dover, N.H. City Council of Seven (including the Mayor) agree on my visit to there on Wed., August 12th to meet with him/Eustace on Wed., Aug. 26th @ 7:00 p.m. for him to give a short history lesson on the Fed and HOW they can get their next paychecks in September cashed as "officers" and not employees, I'd be willing to chip in for his travel expenses up to here and back home, plus motel costs and meals, etc. with a free newspaper of when The FOSTER'S DAILY DEMOCRAT does print locally what you can print nationally, to get this monetary system back on track. To also have a book-signing at the local bookstore.

Best wishes, Joe - - - - - - - - - Joseph S. Haas, P.O. Box 3842, Concord, New Hampshire 03302, Tel. 603: 848-6059 (cell phone) e-mail: JosephSHaas at hotmail dot com

cc: (1) to the one City Councilor David Scott by regular mail, since he does not do e-mail, and who was the one who did make the motion to hear how RSA Ch. 123:2 can be activated to bring in over $47,000 in property tax money from a dead-beat there whose land is exempt but NOT the building! See my previous posts at the N.H. Underground here for the details of this and that of also a $2.2 million per year property tax bill to the Feds in Concord, N.H. It costing the City $_____ per day in lost interest.  Can you do the arithmetic on this? Thanks. + cc: (2) to Kat Kanning, the Webmaster; plus (3) Dick Marple, and bcc: to both Keith and Wayne."

The e-mail was sent at exactly 2:57 p.m. this afternoon, Thu. 7/30/09

[Tunga]

So post wher the Supreme Court has defined income...Jed Mercier


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=255&page=509

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the [255 U.S. 509, 519]   case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

" 'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521), 9 A. L. R. 1570 "

[Tunga]

I could delete some posts until Jed and Lord Bumblaster drive Tungas karma down to -77 which would yield a combined score of 77777.

How lucky can you get?

[Tunga]

Jed wants the Tunga to prove there is a Creator.

Good one!

Even if the Matrix is a function of the collective imagination of thought it is still shared information. Your response to the Tungas' many insults validates the existence of time. Which can only come about through the recognition of 3 dimensional space by a two sided mind.

Do you imagine your existence here is the product of a singularity without cause? That's great you've achieved the highest level of being!

Existence for you could never include servitude to some higher power.

Welcome to the club.



   
Re: Plainfield couple charged with not paying taxes
« Reply #100 on: July 06, 2006, 08:53 PM NHFT »
Reply  Quote  Modify  Remove  Split Topic
Quote from: KBCraig on June 27, 2006, 09:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on June 27, 2006, 12:59 PM NHFT
Is the problem that they were in a militia and owned guns or is it that they weren?t paying taxes?

Yes. 

They are charged with not paying federal income taxes. (Or not filing. Or both. I'm not sure.)

But their outspoken militia involvement, gun ownership, and open notice to the IRS that they weren't paying until being provided with a cite of the law requiring them to pay, all made them ripe targets for prospersecution.


Quote
If that?s the case I can?t see where they have a leg to stand on because just as the 1st and 2nd protects their other rights article 16 allows the government to collect taxes.

Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 16th doesn't impose an income tax. It gives Congress the authority to impose an income tax. The argument is that Congress has never actually passed a law imposing an income tax on all people, and upon all sources of income. I haven't studied the internal revenue code, so I don't know the validity of that argument.



Kevin

There are two problems here Kevin. first is the definition of "income" as it appears in the 16th and the second is the focal point of the argument.

The 16th Amendment was proposed in response to the Hanging of the Tax act of 19 oh yada yada. This tax act defined income as earnings on corporate profits. This mearly begs the question: are you a corporation or one of the People defined in the Preamble to the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence who dares to "assume among the Powers of the Earth" the recognition of his natural born right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[grolled]

So post wher the Supreme Court has defined income...Jed Mercier


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=255&page=509

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the [255 U.S. 509, 519]   case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

" 'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521), 9 A. L. R. 1570 "

I don't see any mention or reference to "privilege" in that definition.